Theoretical Physics

Theoretical Physics(every year we have better and better new technology,but fundamental questions are still unanswered)==== Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,theoretical physics has gone to pot.The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use andmisinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were notfor the tragedy of the waste in time,manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection./ Richard Feynman./#" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at allif we just apply working mathematical rules;that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with." /Dirac /#“ Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,you just get used to them.”/ John von Neumann ./#In his 1997 book ” The End of Certainty” Nobel LaureateIlya Prigogine wrote:"The more we know about our universe, the more difficult it becomes to believe in determinism." . . . and“ The quantum paradox is real nightmare for classic mind ”#In his book ” Quantum theory “ ( published in 2002 )John Polkinghorne wrote: “Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…”/ chapter 6, part “ Quantum hype”, page 92 /# We don't know what we are talking about"/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory./#It is important to realize that in physics today,we have no knowledge of what energy is.We do not have a picture that energy comes in littleblobs of a definite amount. ”( Feynman. 1987, about an electron)#In his book ” Quantum theory “ ( published in 2002 )John Polkinghorne wrote: “Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…”/ chapter 6, part “ Quantum hype”, page 92 /===ConclusionThese unanswered questions open a door to many speculations in which many amateurs try to take a part#My speculation The more I study the more I know.The more I know the more ideas I have.The more ideas I have the more they abstract.The more they abstract the less I know the truth.#'' Once upon a time I, Chuang Tze, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, for all purposes a butterfly. I was conscious of my fancies as a butterfly I was conscious of my individuality as a man. Suddenly, I woke up, And there I lay myself again.Now I do not know, if I am a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or if, I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man.''==============

Re: Theoretical Physics

I favor Ernst Mach’s view that the Laws of Physics should adhere as closely as possible to observations of interactions among physical bodies while regarding scientific theories as provisional and secondary to experimental evidence. Mach’s main criticism was for things he called “metaphysicals.” These are abstract or imagined things we read into the laws of physics that are presumed to exist but can’t be directly observed. His frequent complaint was about the Newtonian concepts of an absolute space and time.

Everything we presume to know about space and time is derived from our observations of interactions among physical objects so Mach’s ideal set of laws would describe those observations without the need of references to space and time for their explanations. Mach was never able to reformulate the laws of physics to eliminate the concepts of space, time, and other “metaphysicals” in a way that still made sense to us humans but he hoped others such as Einstein could do so.

One idea that approaches Mach’s ideal is Arthur Eddington’s “shrinking atom” cosmology. Since we don’t have an absolute scale of measurement or even an outside “gods eye” view of the universe, we have no way of knowing if we live in a universe that is expanding while matter remains unchanged or if the material contents of the universe are growing smaller while the size of the universe remains the same. Eddington found the two possibilities to be equivalent and Russel Rierson called Eddington’s “shrinking atom” theory, “inverse expansion” since one theory is the simple physical and mathematical inverse of the other.

I see no way of identifying one possibility as more “real” than the other but the interpretation of the distant galactic observations as an “accelerated contraction” of matter makes more sense than an “accelerated expansion of space. The former explanation requires no dark energy to accelerate expansion and it explains why galaxies and atoms don’t expand along with the expansion of space.

It’s a Chung-tsian conundrum. Is space expanding or are we and the whole material world growing smaller?

Re: Theoretical Physics

bangstrom » April 26th, 2019, 5:23 am wrote: Mach was never able to reformulate the laws of physics to eliminate the concepts of space, time, and other “metaphysicals” in a way that still made sense to us humans but he hoped others such as Einstein could do so.

Indeed, Einstein reformulated Newton's space and time by creating an absolute ''4-D spacetime''===

Re: Theoretical Physics

It’s a Chung-tsian conundrum. Is space expanding or are we and the whole material world growing smaller?

If the universe is a "Block" as Relativity suggests, and thus exists as a static hologram of sorts, where "Time" is simply another direction of space,

then possibly we, our individual window of perception, is surfing as it were upon a wave of consciousness, consciousness existing as simply another another wave field interlaced throughout the block.

Like a particle that arises from the apex of a wave function, exists momentarily, and then disperses back into the sea of potentiality, as one might see in a vacuum, so the "I" within us, that which is seen as an "observer", is something like another type of particle.

This would mean the nothing is moving anywhere, only the "I" within me. The experience of time, or rather motion, is merely an intuitive experience, thus it is bound to consciousness, results from consciousness, and not the outer universe at all.

GR and quantum wave theory fit this, but science, particularly Quantum Mechanics, cast these truths aside in favor of that which is already proven to be illusionary, namely the idea that time is incomplete and thus the universe is as it were, growing older.

So according to perception, and the illusionary question as to whether the universe is expanding or contracting, we have the right argument but the wrong factors.

However, Feynman inadvertently told us exactly what energy is."Because the muon has a mass about 200 times higher than the electron, the 'stopwatch hand' for a muon turns 200 times more rapidly than that of an electron." - QED, p143

That means "energy" (a.k.a. "mass") is the rate of spin. Feynman was quite coy about characterizing that spin, a sign that he didn't understand it.

"Now energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get it right. …it is not easy to understand energy well enough to use it right, so that you can deduce something correctly using the energy idea." - The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p178

"I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it." - Six Not So Easy Pieces, p xxii

Instead, he assigned the spin to an imaginary "stopwatch" throughout QED.

Feynman supplied necessary spin abstractly, attributed to an imaginary watch with a single spinning hand.

With energy identified as the rate of that spin, what remains is to identify what object is spinning, its primary spin axis and its plane of rotation. This is within reach.

"…the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. … the uncertainty principle is such a basic result in quantum mechanics…"

In the limit of a single moment (as ∆t goes to zero), ∆E becomes infinite. That is, the spin rate describing energy is essentially instantaneous.* This helps by selecting only objects unrestricted by speed limit c. Such an object might be a projection or one with zero size. A lightlike spacetime interval qualifies on both counts. A lightlike interval has zero span but is seen in spacetime as a projection.

It's called a "Mercator projection" for a reason. The south pole is a single point, here projected as a 25,000 mile line. Similarly, spacetime maps project a lightlike interval point to indefinite span (yellow arrow).

*Don't be put off by infinities. You deal with them all the time. How many geometric points in an inch? How about two inches? Yet, using a system of "lengths", finite math operations readily apply. "Energy" does for intrinsic spin what "length" does for linear displacement.

Look again at time-energy uncertainty.

∆t ∆E > ħ/2 = h/4pi

The Planck constant (h, with units of angular momentum) is reduced by a solid angle (4 pi), indicating a 3-plane of rotation. There are 4 known dimensions. Time is observed to be unidirectional, so it can't be in the 3-plane of rotation (which must provide oscillatory freedom). But it can serve as the axis of "chronaxial" spin. Because the 3-plane of rotation contains the lightlike object (a "pinhole"), it identifies an interval (rather than spatial) 3-plane.

Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Re: An Uncertain Answer

Faradave » April 30th, 2019, 2:38 pm wrote:However, Feynman inadvertently told us exactly what energy is."Because the muon has a mass about 200 times higher than the electron, the 'stopwatch hand' for a muon turns 200 times more rapidly than that of an electron." - QED, p143

That means "energy" (a.k.a. "mass") is the rate of spin.

This implies that, for particles with mass, the “energy” of a particle is its radial energy.

Re: Contact Lens

bangstrom wrote:This implies that, for particles with mass, the "energy" of a particle is its radial energy.

We mustn't put the cart before the horse. A "particle" (and its rest mass) are better seen as resulting from the spin rather than the other way around. We don't start with a particle and spin it. We start with a pinhole and with chronaxial spin, get a particle. Such a particle may then participate in classical motions including classical spin.

bangstrom wrote:Do pinholes have mass? And, if not, where is their energy?

A pinhole is essentially a hole in spacetime. It is the conduit through which, for example, the energy attributed to a photon passes to get from emitter to absorber. You should like that, since pinholes obviate photons.

Pinholes have a lightlike orientation, which is conventionally 45° in a spacetime diagram. But such diagrams are known to be distorted.

"… the best we can do for figures in Minkowski space is to map them onto Euclidean space, as did Mercator with his flat map of the curved surface of the earth. Such maps necessarily distort metric relations and one has to compensate for this distortion." - Relativity, p90

My way of compensating is a switch from space-time to interval-time coordinates, which are distortion free and thus, show a pinhole as it is, a single point of contact in 4D. We don't experience this since its orientation makes it a velocity-dependent hole, specifically accessible only at speed limit c. A lightlike interval is defined as one for which the temporal and spatial components are equal. So, it is also defined as having magnitude zero (i.e. interval contact).

Euclidean interval-time coordinates show a lightlike interval (light's path) undistorted, as a single point of interval contact between emitter and absorber.

If you liked Kracklauer, I think you'd enjoy glancing at the diagrams in my article (≈ 3 min.), with the advantage that it doesn't cost $140 and I'm usually here to explain my model in person.

As to energy, a spinning pinhole is the most fundamental manifestation of energy, common to all its other forms. Different spin rates correspond to different mass particles, which goes back to the Feynman quote on electrons & muons.

Re: Contact Lens

bangstrom wrote:This implies that, for particles with mass, the "energy" of a particle is its radial energy.

We mustn't put the cart before the horse. A "particle" (and its rest mass) are better seen as resulting from the spin rather than the other way around. We don't start with a particle and spin it. We start with a pinhole and with chronaxial spin, get a particle. Such a particle may then participate in classical motions including classical spin.

This explanation sounds like the creation of virtual particles. How does one classical particle connect with another via a pinhole?

Faradave » April 30th, 2019, 8:52 pm wrote:As to energy, a spinning pinhole is the most fundamental manifestation of energy, common to all its other forms. Different spin rates correspond to different mass particles, which goes back to the Feynman quote on electrons & muons.

I can imagine spacetime in rotation because spacetime is a some-thing rather than pure nothingness but a rotating pinhole “… a hole in spacetime.” is hard to imagine. Pinholes sound like the point like poles in a Mercator projection stretched to the length of the equator rather than a some-thing having an ontic existence.

I think it was Feynman who defined a “field” as a euphemism for what it really is which is “action at a distance.” Are pinholes similar to Feynman’s field?

Re: Contact Lens

We mustn't put the cart before the horse. A "particle" (and its rest mass) are better seen as resulting from the spin rather than the other way around. We don't start with a particle and spin it. We start with a pinhole and with chronaxial spin, get a particle. Such a particle may then participate in classical motions including classical spin.

Growing up, we were taught the structure of an atom, nucleus, electrons shells, electrons jumping from shell to shell, etc... yet this seemed to be a theoretical model used to understand or categorize amounts of force, etc....

Whether such a singular particle, this atom, looked or truly functioned in this form seemed to not actually be the case. Going sub-atomic, now we are talking about spin, which in my somewhat uneducated mind seems to be a model based upon the gyroscopic effect. Basically a plane of force being explained as a right angle trajectory.

So when the question is asked, "what is energy or where does it come from", according to the theoretical model one might say "spin". Within the model this might provide an explanation, as one is merely thinking within the parameters of the model, making predictions, etc... But from a broader point of view cannot one still ask, "do electrons truly orbit, is there really a nucleus as such, is anything really spinning at all?"

Re: In Touch with Particles

bangstrom wrote:This explanation sounds like the creation of virtual particles. How does one classical particle connect with another via a pinhole?

Yes, good intuition! Pinholes replace all conventional "force carriers", including photons and virtual particles. As holes with a lightlike direction (in 4D), they do the same job as a purported intermediary force carriers but via direct physical contact instead. Since the holes are speed c-dependent, only energy can transit them.

A classical "particle" in this model is simply the center of the pinhole's chronaxial spin. (I often say, "Like the eye of a hurricane, a particle has no existence apart from spin.") As such, a particle typically occupies a single geometric point (as a "point particle"). With contact are momentarily superimposed.

With light transmission (i.e. contact), some of the spin (recall, spin rate = energy) gets transferred from the emitter to the lower-energy absorber. This is like two spinning tops touching along their axes of rotation.

bangstrom wrote:I think it was Feynman who defined a "field" as a euphemism for what it really is which is "action at a distance." Are pinholes similar to Feynman's field?

A pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) acts as a "field element". With spin, a field element generates a field. By spinning a rope overhead fast enough you effectively generate a rope field (a disk-like region where average density falls off with radius).

If you could spin it around a 4th dimensional axis, field intensity would fall off with radius squared, exactly as we observe for G and EM fields. Of course, spin around a temporal axis (i.e. chronaxial spin) is inherently instantaneous since it does not necessarily entail ∆t. This is true regardless of spin rate. That's how two kinds of particles can have different spin rates (i.e. energies), yet both be instantaneous, as described above.

bangstrom wrote:I can imagine spacetime in rotation because spacetime is a some-thing rather than pure nothingness but a rotating pinhole "… a hole in spacetime" is hard to imagine. Pinholes sound like the point like poles in a Mercator projection stretched to the length of the equator...

Let's work with that. The pole on a Mercator projection appears as a line. Despite that depiction, we know that any two points on that "line" are in contact (as a single point of contact, the pole). Thus, the line is a projection of contact. Essentially, it's a wormhole connecting the points, bypassing the distance depicted between them.

Now recall that earth rotates. Think of the sun off to the right. The image on the map would shift continuously rightward with the lost part wrapping around to appear on the left side. The hole at the pole would be spinning.

As the World Turns: Any two locations on the line depicting the south pole, despite having different longitude coordinates, are in contact, as if connected by a wormhole. As earth rotates, the hole spins.

bangstrom wrote:Pinholes... rather than a some-thing having an ontic existence.

Think of a notch cut in a disk as a hole connecting its center to its edge. Does the hole have an ontic existence? How long is it? Can you measure it? Take away the disk. Is the hole still there? Try measuring it now.

Bring back the disk and spin it. Fast enough and the hole effectively becomes a field. The field intensity increases toward the center so, the chance of shooting a BB through it improves toward the center.Holey Moley! A hole can spin and become a field. The notch is a "subtractive field element" in this case providing less than ambient density.

Re: Orbital Transition

Here, by "orbital transition" I don't use the ordinary meaning, instead I mean the transition of an isolated electron to one in an orbital.

Brent696 wrote:do electrons truly orbit

Yes and no. I'm suggesting that a force is nature's way of conveying energy from one place to another. Conventional physics models a "force carrier" such as a photon. I instead use a "pinhole" as the energy conduit, which can be represented by a force vector (an arrow). The arrow would be lightlike, making a 45° angle in a typical spacetime diagram.

I model an electron like a clock with a single hand, a pinhole. The pinhole spins around a timeline creating a field. We attribute a "particle" to the center of that field. So an electron, in its rest frame, is the center of a pinhole with chronaxial spin. It's very much like Feynman's "stopwatch" above.

Now with that stopwatch in mind, imagine that the tip of the arrow gets caught on something massive, like a proton. The stopwatch has very little mass of its own but it keeps spinning since energy is spin rate (i.e. energy) is conserved. So now, in the rest frame of the proton, we no longer see the arrow spin around its center. Instead the tip of the arrow is caught on the proton and the whole watch starts spinning around the proton.

Classically, that would make an orbit. But this isn't a classical situation. The arrow's original spin was chronaxial. The axis remains temporal but is now moved to the tip of the arrow. What results is the distribution of the "electron" in an "orbital" about the proton. This is a 3D structure. Chronaxial orbit = orbital. It has an inherent wave nature, complete with harmonic character as observed.

Caught in the Act: An electron captured by a proton is distributed by spin eversion into an chronaxial orbital. Distribution is thus instantaneous, putting the electron in a "superposition", occupying the entire orbital at once. Finding it at any one location is only probabilistic.

Re: In Touch with Particles

Faradave » May 1st, 2019, 1:20 pm wrote: Pinholes replace all conventional "force carriers", including photons and virtual particles. As holes with a lightlike direction (in 4D), they do the same job as a purported intermediary force carriers but via direct physical contact instead. Since the holes are speed c-dependent, only energy can transit them.

A classical "particle" in this model is simply the center of the pinhole's chronaxial spin. [ ] As such, a particle typically occupies a single geometric point (as a "point particle"). With contact are momentarily superimposed.

With light transmission (i.e. contact), some of the spin (recall, spin rate = energy) gets transferred from the emitter to the lower-energy absorber. This is like two spinning tops touching along their axes of rotation.

If you could spin it around a 4th dimensional axis, field intensity would fall off with radius squared, exactly as we observe for G and EM fields. Of course, spin around a temporal axis (i.e. chronaxial spin) is inherently instantaneous since it does not necessarily entail ∆t. This is true regardless of spin rate. That's how two kinds of particles can have different spin rates (i.e. energies), yet both be instantaneous, as described above.

It is not clear how this works. On one hand you describe light energy transfer as lightlike via direct physical contact as with two spinning tops touching along their axes of rotation, via direct physical contact and inherently instantaneous with contact momentarily superimposed. This makes light sound like a direct and instant transfer of energy from one particle to another.

On the other hand, you propose pinholes as speed c-dependent conduits for energy. This would imply that light energy travels via pinholes through space with an identifiable speed. Could you clarify your notion of lightspeed?

Re: Your Speeding Ticket

bangstrom wrote:On one hand you describe light energy transfer … like a direct and instant transfer of energy from one particle to another. On the other hand, …light energy travels via pinholes through space with an identifiable speed. Could you clarify your notion of lightspeed?

This is equivalent to asking how light can travel for billions of years to our telescopes without aging. Time dilation is an accepted and rigorously-tested aspect of Relativity.

"In other words, the spacetime interval between two events on the world line of something moving at the speed of light is zero. Such an interval is termed lightlike or null. A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage." - spacetime interval

Fortunately, interval-time coordinates clarify this. A major problem with Minkowski diagrams stems from the minus sign in the equation used to find the interval separation between events (∆d). That has a hyperbolic rather than a familiar Euclidean geometry. A consequence is that, with increasing speed, the coordinates of moving frames (') converge on the lightlike interval. This denies light a rest frame, since the coordinates collapse together at limit c.

Rearranging the interval equation to get rid of the minus sign, suggests nice, flat, Euclidean, interval-time coordinates. Avoiding distortion, they show lightlike intervals correctly, with zero magnitude (i.e. as physical contact), exactly when space and time become equal (again, indicating speed c). This coordinate system does not collapse because space is no longer a coordinate.

People don't intuitively grasp the reality that 4D offers vastly more paths to make contact (i.e. interval contact) than are available classically (in space alone, at any given moment). And bypassing the time coordinate means bypassing aging. Light spends zero time crossing zero interval path, geometrically independent from time. So, light doesn't age, even though the time and space it bypasses can be immense.

In 4D coordinates "speed" is depicted by a worldline's slope. If you punch a hole in an index card, it has a direction perpendicular to the card. The hole can point to the right. It can point up. It can point in between, etc. In Minkowski spacetime, a pinhole points in the direction of a light ray, typically 45° from the temporal axis. That's confusing since it makes it seem that light should age with its ∆t.

In interval-time coordinates, light energy "radiates" through a pinhole pointing perpendicular to the temporal coordinate, which avoids aging even as it bypasses indefinite amounts of time (i.e. the amount the cosmos ages). The pinhole is the point of contact for our analogy of to two tops touching along a mutual spin axis.

bangstrom wrote:It is still not clear to me what is spinning when a hole in space is spinning. Can spin have existence without a particle or spacetime field to spin?

Because a pinhole has direction, it has the potential to change direction. It can spin much like a hole in an index card can spin. We indicate a pinhole's direction by a vector (an arrow), then just imagine that arrow spinning around a temporal axis. The center of spin is a "particle" and the distribution of the arrow is its field.

The length of the arrow is zero as an interval but is indefinite in terms of space and time. Thus, a particle's field has indefinite range in space and time (typically seen as a light cone in Minkowski diagrams). That's what we, as subluminal observers, measure.

Re: How We Slice It

That specifying a "spacetime event" or a point location in any 4D region requires 4 coordinates, implies "coordination" of all four dimensions, including time, as you note. So, at any given cosmological age, there is associated a volume (or 3D slice) we call the "cosmos".

As far as ultimate origins, I personally adhere to theological explanation. For example, a biblical creation-in-progress would not rule out a Big Bang origin, evolution nor any legitimate science. There's no need for a young-earth argument if the Creator creates an already-old earth, cosmos, etc.

But yes, I believe conservation laws hold nearly all the way back to the Bang. I expect that all the conservation laws will be unified through fundamental first principles - to something like conservation of chronaxial spin.

Re: Turning on a Di-me

To review, my assertion of a lightlike object (a pinhole) that moves rotationally is no more preposterous than Einstein's assertion of a lightlike object (a photon) that moves translationally. Both objects always point in a lightlike direction in 4D (i.e. ≈45° from the temporal coordinate in a spacetime diagram, 90° in an interval-time diagram).

hyksos once conveyed a notion from a math forum, which I will not pretend to fully grasp. The gist of it was that they believe rotation in 4D can only occur about a 2D axis!

Interestingly, interval-time coordinates make it obvious that, if and only if, the object to be rotated is lightlike, space and time converge to a dual axis! All along, I've conveyed this axis as a black & blue vertical line.

In the limit as ∆t = ∆x, the temporal coordinate coincides vertically with space in the direction the pinhole is pointing. This constitutes a dual axis of rotation.

With chronaxial spin, the spatial constituent of the dual axis continuously and instantaneously changes. It is thus, better thought a superposition of all spatial directions, each contributing probabilistically to the dual axis. But that provides a handy origin for absolutely-random, quantum indeterminism. Which way will a light quantum emerge from a particle formed by chronaxial spin? It's unknowable.

Re: Theoretical Physics

There must be a connection between the origin of particle spin and the origin of the universe but I don’t know what it might be and, if there is a continuous conversion of universal expansion into particle spin, I can’t imagine how we could detect it.

There was a risky but effective maneuver for stopping small, early style planes on a short a landing field. The pilot would slam hard on the brake on one side of the plane but not the other. This puts the plane into a rapid spin that stops its forward motion but leaves the plane spinning like a top. Linear motion is converted into radial motion and energy is conserved.

If the outward linear motion of the Big Bang is being converted into particle spin, that should have a slowing effect on the expansion of the universe. As with other possible cosmological changes, we don’t have an absolute measure for motion against which we can measure change so universal increase in particle spin rates would appear to us as an increase in the rate of time which we could not detect locally if the change is proportional everywhere.

We could detect an increase in the rate of our local time by observing distant galaxies having the older, slower particle spins since viewing distant objects is essentially looking backwards in time. A slower rate of time (slower spin rates) on the distant galaxies would appear to us as redshifted light coming to us from those galaxies, so if radial expansion is being converted to particle spin, there may be no way of observing the change. It would be the transition from one source of redshifting to another.

Re: Your Speeding Ticket

Faradave » May 2nd, 2019, 1:17 pm wrote:This is equivalent to asking how light can travel for billions of years to our telescopes without aging. Time dilation is an accepted and rigorously-tested aspect of Relativity.

If light can spend billions of years in transit, there must be a lot of energy in the form of radiation from stars disappearing into the vacuum of space while looking for a place to land. This appears to be a violation of the conservation of energy and I don't know of any observation that suggests that space is an enormous energy sink.

Faradave » May 2nd, 2019, 1:17 pm wrote:"In other words, the spacetime interval between two events on the world line of something moving at the speed of light is zero. Such an interval is termed lightlike or null. A photon arriving in our eye from a distant star will not have aged, despite having (from our perspective) spent years in its passage." - spacetime intervalFortunately, interval-time coordinates clarify this.

Interval-time coordinates tell us that light does not exist in either space or time so it neither ages nor travels through our 3D spacetime as would a classical object. Every square on a Minkowski or Epstein diagram represents a fixed amount of both space and time at the constant ratio of c giving us the amount of space and time between between any two points on the diagram relative to an inertially "at rest" observer.

Faradave » May 2nd, 2019, 1:17 pm wrote:Rearranging the interval equation to get rid of the minus sign, suggests nice, flat, Euclidean, interval-time coordinates. Avoiding distortion, they show lightlike intervals correctly, with zero magnitude (i.e. as physical contact), exactly when space and time become equal (again, indicating speed c). This coordinate system does not collapse because space is no longer a coordinate.

Lightlike intervals indicate physical contact where energy can be exchanged directly from one remote particle to another. Some of those “vastly more” 4D paths include paths that can directly connect one point on a light cone with any other point on the same light cone so a direct exchange of energy between any two points is possible in 4D spacetime as with your example of two spinning tops having a common spin axis.

If light can “worm hole” through 3D space, there is no need for light to also physically travel through observable space with an observable “light speed.” One possibility is enough. Light radiates through 4D space by bypassing indefinite amounts of space exactly as it bypasses indefinite amounts of time so it neither ages nor does it physically pass through 3D space.

The slope of a line is a ratio and a ratio is not necessarily a speed even if it has the same space/time units as a speed.

Faradave » May 2nd, 2019, 1:17 pm wrote:In interval-time coordinates, light energy "radiates" through a pinhole pointing perpendicular to the temporal coordinate, which avoids aging even as it bypasses indefinite amounts of time (i.e. the amount the cosmos ages). The pinhole is the point of contact for our analogy of to two tops touching along a mutual spin axis.

Light does not need to travel through 3D spacetime to contact another point in 3D since, "4D touches 3D everywhere."It is philosophically satisfying to think that light must pass through the same space and time that we subluminal observers measure but light bypasses both by taking a path through 4D that is not available in 3D.

Re: Agreeing to Agree

bangstrom wrote:If light can spend billions of years in transit, there must be a lot of energy in the form of radiation from stars disappearing into the vacuum of space while looking for a place to land.

Light appears to subluminal observers to spend time in transit. That is, to all observers, a light absorber lies on the future light cone of its emitter.

To a light quantum however, the actual path is the interval path which is zero. It bypasses space and time on its way to its future absorber. This implies there is always a future absorber or the light will not be emitted, which explains why light is not always emitted immediately from an excited orbital. The timing of spontaneous emission seems to us, absolutely random. It also implies a pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) rather than a photon.

bangstrom wrote:This appears to be a violation of the conservation of energy

That's a legitimate objection. There are two ways to address it.1. Note the word "appears". Your local bank branch has a limited amount of cash on hand at any given time, insufficient to supply a run where everyone wants to withdraw all funds now. Nevertheless, the supply is sufficient to supply any one person who wishes to make a withdrawal. It thus, "appears" to have complete accountability for all funds deposited. Cash is said to be to be "conserved" even if it has been lent out.

Similarly if you put an opaque object in the path of a laser, it will always find light quanta there. You can't fool light because a pinhole reaches any future absorber exactly at the intersection of the emitter's light cone.

2.This is trickier because it involves fields. When an emitter losses a light quantum of energy, its G field diminishes. This effects the potential energy of objects experiencing that field. But the diminished field is not experienced immediately. The change only appears to communicate at speed c. The energy represented by the field thus, appears to be conserved by the emitter's field until the absorber adds the received energy to its own G field.

bangstrom wrote:Interval-time coordinates tell us that light does not exist in either space or time so it neither ages nor travels through our 3D spacetime as would a classical object.

Yes. With the clarification that travel through space (at any given time) is by definition, instantaneous. Thus, it is limited to objects (such as a pinhole) unrestricted by limit c. As you noted later in your post, the classical impression of motion through space is illusory, attributable to our own motion through time along with the object.

bangstrom wrote:Lightlike intervals indicate physical contact where energy can be exchanged directly from one remote particle to another.

Yes, exactly! I call these lightlike conduits "pinholes". A pinhole acts as a field element. When it spins, it generates a field (like spinning a rope). Instantaneous spin gives a continuous field. Chronaxial spin (about time) is inherently instantaneous and occurs in a 3-plane, yielding a 3D field rather than a disk (obtained with a rope).

bangstrom wrote:paths that can directly connect one point on a light cone with any other

I think we agree but it would be better to specify that lightlike paths connect the vertex of a light cone to any other point on that cone. A sideways path on a light cone, for example, would be spacelike not lightlike.

bangstrom wrote:Light radiates through 4D space by bypassing indefinite amounts of space exactly as it bypasses indefinite amounts of time so it neither ages nor does it physically pass through 3D space.

Yes, exactly.

bangstrom wrote:"4D touches 3D everywhere."

I think it would be clearer to say that in 4D time intersects every spatial location. This is analogous to saying that in solid geometry (3D), Z intersects any XY-plane at every location.

Re: Speed Demon?

bangstrom wrote:The slope of a line is a ratio and a ratio is not necessarily a speed even if it has the same space/time units as a speed.

An interesting aspect of interval-time coordinates is that they allow light a rest frame. Recall that spacetime coordinates collapse together as frame speed approaches limit c, so there is no spacetime coordinate frame for light. Light's rest frame does not contradict Einstein's 2nd postulate, "The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference." because in interval-time coordinates we are talking of interval rest. That's the ratio of interval separation with respect to time (∆d/∆t = 0), as opposed to conventional spatial rest (∆x/∆t = 0).

That, of course, implies two kinds of speed, spatial speed and interval speed. Of the two, I believe Einstein would have preferred the latter because intervals are invariant, the same to all inertial observers. (Intervals can have units of length or duration. Either way, its separation in 4D.)

Bottom Line:Spatial speed c = interval rest. The latter comes about because lightlike intervals are always zero. I often write, "c is an absolute speed limit because contact is an absolute proximity limit." Said another way, you can't go slower than absolute rest!

3 - the geometrical form of quantum particle is not firm, particle has elastic form (according to SRT)

4 - particle has its inner parameter - spin (rotation)

5- there are two kinds of spin - rotations:a) rotation by linear impelse (h) - particle behavies as a flat ''photon'' with constant speed c=1 (without to produsse EM waves) and b) rotation by Goudsmit / Uhlenbec angular impulce ( h-bar) /around its own axis / diameter / -in this kind of movement particle's flat form changes into ''ball'' ( according to Euler equations) and particle can produce pure electric waves.( like a string-particle can do them )

6 - it takes to particle 10^-43sec ( Planck's time ) to change its condition.

7 - these waves are pure energy - electrical waves( they are 10^36 time stronger than gravity phenomena )

8 - this is a way ( in my opinion ) how Dirac's ''virtual particles'' can becom real particles.=======

Re: Theoretical Physics

Duking It Out with Quantum Mechanics/ By George Greenstein on May 7, 2019 /#When I first studied quantum mechanics in college,I found myself utterly mystified. I learned thatan electron can be in two places at once.I learned that an event can happen without a cause.I learned that you can measure the position ofa subatomic particle, or its velocity, but never both.

How could such things be? . . . . . It makes no difference: this is the new world—get used to it.

Re: Theoretical Physics

Is it possible for your pinhole particle to extend its effect across great distances of space to connect with other pinhole particles?

Faradave is of course the only authority on his concept of what a “pinhole” is and he did mention something about a pinhole spin creating a particle. I think the pinhole idea has a lot of merit but I would not be surprised if several different people contemplating the same general idea are likely to come up with several different versions of what a pinhole might be.

I think of a pinhole mainly as a wormhole through space and time. My own opinion is largely influenced by theories such as John Cramer’s TIQM. Cramer’s “pinhole” is a pair of waves moving forward and backward in time that connect two or more particles such as electrons and this connection is prerequisite for a non-local transfer of a single quantum of light energy so the connection comes first before there can be an exchange of energy.

Faradave says a pinhole has a spin and I think this may be a better visualization than Cramer’s waves but an electromagnetic wave is thought to alternate between an electro and a magnetic plane which gives the wave a spin-like nature so either possibility works with the understanding that these are 3D approximations of something that may be quite different at the quantum level.

I like to think of a pinhole as a wormhole through space connecting two or more remote particles. I also like to think of a pinhole as having a coaxial spin. That is, having one spin moving forward in time and another spin in the opposite direction moving backward in time. Magnetic lines of force are thought to be coaxial having spins in opposite directions and I suspect EM transmissions are much the same.

Re: Theoretical Physics

socrat44 » May 10th, 2019, 6:59 am wrote:When I first studied quantum mechanics in college,I found myself utterly mystified. I learned thatan electron can be in two places at once.

I have a somewhat different interpretation of this possibility. An electron, or any other particle, can become entangled with another similar particle and when entangled their locations are indeterminate. That is, we can’t say that electron A is in location A and electron B is in location B as we can with non-entangled electrons. Their locations are said to be superimposed which doesn’t necessarily mean that either electron is in more than one place at once. There is still one electron in location A and one electron in location B.

If electron A has an UP spin and electron B has a DOWN spin both before and after entanglement, there is no change to be observed. But if the electron in location A has a DOWN spin and the electron in location B has an UP spin after entanglement, then it appears that the electrons have swapped locations after momentarily having been in both locations at once.

A more prosaic explanation is that neither electron has moved from its original location or had more than one location at once but they have swapped quantum spin identities after momentarily having shared a common Schroedinger wavefunction. It is like two children on a teeter totter. When in motion they are swapping their identities as UP and DOWN but their locations remain the same. In the case of quantum particles, the pinhole is the teeter totter.

This is usually easy to understand with one particle because observing either the position or velocity of a particle changes either the position or velocity of the particle in some unpredictable way.

The EPR effect explains that, if you have two identical particles moving with the same velocity and known directions, you can observe the position or velocity of one particle and calculate the position and velocity of the unobserved particle so you can know both the position and velocity of the other particle. The experiments of Bell and Aspect demonstrated that the EPR effect was invalid because messing with one particle also messes with the other particle no matter how remote it may be. This is quite counter intuitive so- get used to it.

Re: Hole Role

Some careful distinctions are needed. A pinhole is an object, specifically a hole in 4D. A pinhole is not by itself a particle. A pinhole with spin creates a field. The center of that field is designated a "particle".

pinhole + spin = particle

By analogy, if you spin a rope, it describes a "field" of rope distribution. There is a center of spin. The rope, like a pinhole, is a radial field element. That's the sense in which they are both objects.

bangstrom wrote:Is it possible for your pinhole particle to extend its effect across great distances of space to connect with other pinhole particles?

Yes! That's the basis of the name "pinhole" (particle-interaction wormhole).

bangstrom wrote:I would not be surprised if several different people contemplating the same general idea are likely to come up with several different versions of what a pinhole might be.

Being a fundamental "first principle", a pinhole has many roles to play. It's an object: something inhabiting the continuum. It's a hole, a discontinuity in the 4D continuum. It's contact (in 4D) or at least the potential for contact. It's a fundamental bit, the binary opposite of separation. It's an energy conduit (between particles) and may thus be considered to embody a force. It's a field element. It's a photon replacement. The list goes on (graviton replacement …).

bangstrom wrote:I think of a pinhole mainly as a wormhole through space and time.

Yes! Exactly.

bangstrom wrote:Cramer’s “pinhole” is a pair of waves moving forward and backward in time that connect two or more particles such as electrons and this connection is prerequisite for a non-local transfer of a single quantum of light energy so the connection comes first before there can be an exchange of energy.

A hole is fundamentally simpler than a wave. My model derives wave nature from the spin of a pinhole. Note that net energy transfer is always observed forward in time. My model preserves that but when a pinhole connects an emitter with an absorber, it's across indefinitely large spans of space and time (bypassing them). This is "hidden locality", contact not apparent in 3D. It's not exactly a "hidden local variable" but it can serve that purpose, without compromising entanglement.

bangstrom wrote:…electromagnetic wave is thought to alternate between an electro and a magnetic plane which gives the wave a spin-like…

Yes. I haven't developed EM much in these pages as it is a bit more complicated than gravity (G). I have enough trouble communicating G. But my model does nicely accommodate EM. This is necessarily inherent in the transfer of a light quantum (EM energy) via pinhole.

Re: Theoretical Physics

bangstrom wrote:Is it possible for your pinhole particle to extend its effect across great distances of space to connect with other pinhole particles?

Yes! That's the basis of the name "pinhole" (particle-interaction wormhole).

My question was directed towards “socrat44” because his explanation of a pinhole sounded like a particle and not at all like a “wormhole” connecting particles which is different from anything either you or I have in mind.

socrat44 » May 13th, 2019, 1:13 am wrote: Cramer's “pinhole” as '' a pair of waves moving forward and backward in time''doesn't take part in interaction between electrons, Everybody knows, this honor belongs to photons

Your understanding of a “pinhole” appears to be a particle while Faradave and I consider a pinhole to be a wormhole connecting particles- often across a great distance of space. The pinhole idea completely replaces the more conventional concept of photon particles. Also, the G/U effect refers to particle spin. A pinhole is much like Maxwell’s EM plane interaction minus the photon particle.

This is why I am asking if you consider a “pinhole” to be a particle or a long distance connection between particles. Faradave has a clear explanation of a pinhole in his last post.

I am overjoyed that you have a hard copy of this book. Everyone should have a copy of Feynman's QED on their shelf. I have my hardcopy here. Bravo.

With energy identified as the rate of that spin, what remains is to identify what object is spinning, its primary spin axis and its plane of rotation. This is within reach.

This is where I'm gonna have to cut you off. Some caveats and qualifications and clarifications are needed.

Richard Feynman was one of the greatest science teachers in the history of the United States. His book, QED, (which I love) is not a textbook on quantum field theory. It was intended for a lay audience. Among its total of 152 pages , those contain zero equations. For modern physics no equations is a blessing and a curse at the same time. I tell non-physics people that the book is a gateway drug to modern physics, and I mention to them the zero equations, because it means they have no excuse not to read it. This cannot be said of Penrose's Road to Reality which is an impenetrable wall of math.

When Feynman used the word "arrows" he was actually referring to what are called Probability Amplitudes in QFT. When Feynman said "add up all the arrows" he was actually performing integration. The integral he was referring to is called the Path Integral in textbooks.

You need not chase down and identify the "what object is spinning". We already know what it is. The clock hands on a stopwatch Feynman keeps talking about are actually parts of the Schroedinger Wave. They are not real-valued vectors. They are complex numbers (complex vectors) in a Hilbert space. The frequency at which this clock hand rotates is directly proportional to the momentum of the particle.

λ = h/p = h/mv

An electron accelerated across 8 volts would be traveling at 1.677x106 m/sIts wavelength (λ) would be 0.43 nm

Consequently, (1.677x106 m/s) / (4.337x10-10 m) = 3.867x1015 (1/s)

The "stopwatch" for this electron is rotating its clock hand at 3.9x1015 Hertz

Photons have no mass, and always travel at c, so their associated stopwatches circle at constant rotation under all conditions. The calculations are easier and the formula is smaller.

Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Sorry, but this isn't going to fly. The clock hands are not even inside of 3D space. They are complex vectors of the eigenbasis vector of the Schroedinger Wave -- which is sort of like the "peak" or "trough" of the wave.

Re: An Uncertain Answer

hyksos » May 15th, 2019, 10:00 pm wrote:Photons have no mass, and always travel at c, so their associated stopwatches circle at constant rotation under all conditions. The calculations are easier and the formula is smaller.

Photon stopwatches do not circle at a constant rate otherwise light could not have different frequencies. As energy values increase, their rotation rates (stopwatches) spin faster and wavelengths grow shorter. λ = hc/E

Fundamentally, Energy is the chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole in an interval 3-plane.

Sorry, but this isn't going to fly. The clock hands are not even inside of 3D space. They are complex vectors of the eigenbasis vector of the Schroedinger Wave -- which is sort of like the "peak" or "trough" of the wave.

The clock hands are imaginary and analogous to the Schroedinger wave so no one is claiming the clock hands exist in any kind of space so what are you saying “doesn’t fly” ?